discursive essay hsc example

How to Write an HSC English Discursive Writing Piece

Expert reviewed • 21 July 2024 • 15 minute read

Understanding the Discursive Format

A discursive writing piece is a type of text that explores various sides of an argument or issue without the direct intention of persuading the reader to adopt a single point of view. The goal is to present a well-rounded discussion of the topic from multiple perspectives, allowing the reader to consider the complexities of the issue. This often involves presenting arguments both for and against a particular issue (whether explicitly or implicitly) giving the reader a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

Discursive texts are not restricted to an overly formal treatment of perspectives! — discursive texts can be humorous or serious in tone, and can have a formal or informal register. This flexibility allows writers to approach their topics in engaging and creative ways while still maintaining a focus on exploring a balanced view of the chosen subject matter.

Moreover, discursive writing can be hybridized with imaginative writing techniques (Check out this article ) to enhance the discussion of a topic from multiple angles. By incorporating imaginative elements, the discursive text can be made more engaging and thought-provoking.

How to Write a Discursive Text

The exam will give you a stimulus in some form from which you should base your piece on; From the provided quote, statement, extract or image, there are often many different central ideas you can extract to form the basis of your discursive piece. Start by finding a central idea and then consider the different perspectives you could represent in an engaging way.

If you ever find yourself stuck for ideas, keep trying to explore what the stimulus itself represents or could allude to, and keep branching out ideas from this.

The Structure of a Discursive Piece

• The opening should capture the attention of the reader while introducing the central issue either explicitly or implicitly.
• The body paragraphs should explore the topic in detail through exploring both sides or perspectives of the issue/topic.
• The conclusion should encapsulate the issue and perspectives without giving a judgement on either perspective (Remember, the point of a discursive is not to persuade, but to objectively explore multiple perspectives!), the conclusion should be both reflective and thought-provoking.

NOTE: Always remember to title the text you have created!

How to Structure the Body Paragraphs

The discursive piece does not have to be overly formal in structure, this allows leeway in the potential structure of your piece. A common way of structuring the essay is to have two body paragraphs for each perspective of an issue with one proposing the arguments for a case and one explaining the counter arguments, sequentially.

• Introduction : Present the topic and acknowledge the existence of different perspectives without personal judgement.
• Body 1 & 2 : Present arguments in favour of one perspective and then acknowledge counter-arguments.
• Body 3 & 4 : Present arguments in favour of the other perspective and then acknowledge counter-arguments.
• Conclusion : Summarise and reflect on the main arguments, bring up any thought-provoking realisations.

NOTE: Examples are below!

Practice Question 1

Try to write an opening to your own discursive-imaginative text for any subject matter of your choosing. A Band 6 sample opening is shown for reference.

I stand here, amidst the cosmic expanse of this checkered-board; a humble ebony piece, bound to the whims of my king. My brothers and sisters, who are forced to fall and rise, accept the peculiarities of our social environment…as if they were - natural. Why must this be the norm? Locked in a cosmic battle; sometimes victorious; other times - not. How might I transcend the shackles of imprisonment and ascend to the freedoms of reality?

This sample opening immediately captures the readers attention through imaginative techniques, a setting and some notion of characters are established, the use of the ellipsis (…) represents a hesitance revealing the character’s disdain for the philosophy subscribed to by the other characters (Metaphorically chess pieces). This opening reveals somewhat implicitly the fundamental issue of the struggle between freedom and captivity through a dichotomy of opposing philosophies.

This is a highly imaginative interpretation of discursive writing; Conveying the central issue to be explored through establishing metaphorical characters is a valid way of tackling a discursive piece. From this opening, the motif of a chessboard can be used throughout the text to argue both for the perspective of blindly being content in captivity and the perspective of seeking freedom by all means necessary.

The above example is a perfect example of the strengths of combining imaginative techniques with the discursive format, it is simply a way to enhance the presentation of ideas within the discursive framework.

Of course, discursive pieces can still be written without extensive imaginative elements, but points for and against particular perspectives should not become boring or monotonous — try to incorporate creative techniques when possible; metaphors can easily be employed to strengthen points.

More Examples

Discursive-imaginative ‘Writer’s Dilemma’

This example includes good personal voice while incorporating imaginative techniques to support arguments and engage the reader, the author has taken the liberty of introducing the arguments sequentially maintaining a logical flow between the arguments.

Topic Starters

Evaluating and improving your discursive piece.

It is best not to memorise a discursive piece word for word to take into the exam. Due to the possible stimulus being entirely different every year, rather than creating something beforehand and adapting it during the exam (Markers can tell!), it is better to create a new piece that plays with the ideas presented in the stimulus.

Don’t worry! By practicing writing, this becomes easier over time. Make sure to refer to HSC past papers to get an idea of what types of stimulus could potentially be asked of you. Don’t be afraid to try out various writing styles and techniques, experiment with humour, satire, or unconventional structures to make your piece more engaging.

Evaluation Checklist

• Balanced Perspectives : Assess whether you have presented each argument as equally viable, ensure that your arguments are not biased. Your piece should demonstrate the complexity of the issue you are exploring.
• Evidence and Examples : Assess the strength and relevance of the evidence and examples you have used, evidence can simply be an exploration of why the argument is valid in certain cases, this can be supported through figurative techniques such as metaphors.
• Relevance to the Stimulus : Ensure that your piece directly addresses some of the ideas presented in the stimulus, the wording of the stimulus will instantly tell you whether the ideas are up for interpretation or if there is a stricter topic the paper wants you to write about.
• Personal Voice : Try to maintain a strong personal voice throughout the piece, techniques, if used correctly, will strengthen the plausibility of your arguments and your conveying of the issue.

How to Write an HSC English Creative Writing Piece

How to Write an HSC English Persuasive Writing Piece

Return to Module 3: Module C: The Craft of Writing

Mod C – Discursive Writing – (Nam Le “Love and Honour”)

DOWNLOAD THE RESOURCE

Resource Description

“Guard your roving thoughts with a jealous care, for speech is but the dealer of thoughts, and every fool can plainly read in your words what is the hour of your thoughts”

Use this quote as a stimulus for a piece of discursive writing that expresses your perspective about a significant idea that you have engaged within Nam Le “Love and Honour”

Words are not my strong suit. I have always been the kind of person to plan out what I am going to say in a situation before it happens, for fear of being unable to articulate my thoughts correctly. A few months ago, my best friend had be n acting in a way that hurt me. I decided to address the issue with her in a mature manner – so as usual, I took to the Notes app on my phone to draft out a message. Attempting to avoid conflict, I expressed my feelings as neutrally as possible, deliberately exaggerating that I still loved her. I read over and edited it several times to make sure it didn’t” sound accusatory – even adding in a plain declaration, saying that "the last thing I want to do is fight. “Despite this, my words failed to achieve their purpose. We had our first argument in over ten years that day. Naturally, I was left wishing I had never said anything at all, a feeling I am sure most are familiar with. I was hurt, and quite frankly, confused – had I not made my stance explicitly clear? And how could my best friend, who knew me almost as well as I knew myself, assume the worst of my intentions?

Alfred Lord Tennyson’s quote seems to suggest that our words always reflect a mirror image of our thoughts, regardless of any measures we may take to conceal them. I have to disagree. This interaiton with my friend – who, I know, is the farthest thing from a fool – serves as proof that beiause our words are open to interpretation, they will only ever serve as an approximation of what we are truly thinking. We would be fools if we believed otherwise.

In a way, we all live with a course similar to the myth of Sisyphus and his rock. We may get close to pushing the boulder of our words to the impossible summit of our thoughts, but we will never completely get there. At times, our words elude us completely, rolling right back down to the bottom of the hill. Writers dedicate their entire lives to encapsulate their visions with the perfect sequence of words, and still, they are not exempt from misreadings or misunderstandings

Report a problem

Popular HSC Resources

• Speech on George Orwell ‘1984’ – Human Experiences
• How To Survive the HSC
• One Night the Moon – Analysis (Video)
• 2020 – Physics – PHS (Trial Paper)
• Business Studies Influences on HR (Quiz)
• Sci Ext – Portfolio Pack
• 2020 – Science Ext – Exam Choice (Trial Paper)
• Domino’s Marketing Case Study

Become a Hero

Easily become a resource hero by simply helping out HSC students. Just by donating your resources to our library!

What are you waiting for, lets Ace the HSC together!

Join our Email List

No account needed.

Get the latest HSC updates.

All you need is an email address.

Common Module State-Rank Essay Showcase: Nineteen Eighty-Four

The following essay was written by Project Academy English Tutor, Marko Beocanin

Marko Beocanin

99.95 ATAR & 3 x State Ranker

The following essay was written by Project Academy English Teacher, Marko Beocanin.

Marko’s Achievements:

• 8th in NSW for English Advanced (98/100)
• Rank 1 in English Advanced, Extension 1 and Extension 2
• School Captain of Normanhurst Boys High School

Marko kindly agreed to share his essay and thorough annotations to help demystify for HSC students what comprises an upper Band 6 response!

Common Module: Nineteen Eighty-Four Essay Question

Marko’s following essay was written in response to the question:

“The representation of human experiences makes us more aware of the intricate nature of humanity.” In your response, discuss this statement with detailed reference to George Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’.

State-Ranking Common Module Essay Response

George Orwell’s 1949 Swiftian satire Nineteen Eighty-Four invites us to appreciate the intricate nature of humanity by representing how the abuse of power by totalitarian governments degrades our individual and collective experiences. (Link to rubric through individual/collective experiences, and a clear cause and effect argument: totalitarian governance -> degraded human experience. Also, comments on the genre of Swiftian satire. Value!) Orwell explores how oppressive authorities suppress the intricate societal pillars of culture, expression and freedom to maintain power. He then reveals how this suppression brutalises individual human behaviour and motivations because it undermines emotion and intricate thought. (Link to rubric through ‘human behaviour and motivations’, and extended cause and effect in which the first paragraph explores the collective ‘cause’ and the second paragraph explores the individual ‘effect’. This is an easy way to structure your arguments whilst continuously engaging with the rubric!) Ultimately, he argues that we must resist the political apathy that enables oppressive governments to maintain power and crush human intricacy. Therefore, his representation of human experiences not only challenges us to consider the intricate nature of humanity, but exhorts us to greater political vigilance so we can preserve it. (Concluding sentence that broadens the scope of the question and reaffirms the purpose of the text).

Orwell makes us aware of the intricate nature of humanity by representing how totalitarian authorities suppress intricate collective experiences of culture, expression and freedom in order to assert control. (This is the ‘collective’ paragraph – a cause and effect argument that relates the question to the loss of human intricacy in the collective as a result of totalitarian rule). His bleak vision was informed by Stalin’s USSR: a regime built upon the fabrication of history in Stalin’s ‘cult of personality’, and ruthlessly enforced by the NKVD. (Specific context – an actual specific regime is named and some details about its enforcement are given). The symbolic colourlessness and propaganda-poster motif he uses to describe London reflects the loss of human intricacy and culture under such leadership: “there seemed to be no colour in anything, except the posters that were plastered everywhere.” (First example sets up the world of the text, and the degraded collective experience). Orwell uses the telescreens, dramatically capitalised “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” posters and allusions to Stalin in Big Brother’s “black-moustachio’d face” as metonyms for how governmental surveillance dominates both physical and cultural collective experiences. Winston’s metatextual construction of the fictitious “Comrade Ogilvy” serves as a symbol for the vast, worthless masses of information produced by totalitarian governments to undermine the intricacy of real human history: “Comrade Ogilvy, who had never existed…would exist just as authentically, and upon the same evidence, as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar.” Similarly, Orwell’s satirical representation of Newspeak ignites the idea that political slovenliness causes self-expression to degrade, which in turn destroys our capacity for intricate thought and resistance: “we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” (The examples above prove that the government’s leadership style truly is totalitarian, and that it results in a loss of intricacy and ‘humanity’ in the collective. It’s good to cover a variety of examples that explore different facets of the collective – for example, the first example establishes the extreme surveillance, the second example establishes the loss of ‘truth’/history, and the third example establishes the loss of language). The political bitterness that marks Nineteen Eighty-Four as a Swiftian satire (This is a link to the ‘Swiftian’ term used in the thesis statement. It’s important to refer back to any descriptive terms you use in your thesis) ultimately culminates in O’Brien’s monologue, where Orwell juxtaposes the politicised verb “abolish” to symbols of human intricacy, “we shall abolish the orgasm…there will be no art, no literature, no science…when we are omnipotent”, to express how totalitarian rulers suppress collective experiences to gain metaphoric omnipotence. Thus, Orwell makes us aware of the intricate nature of humanity by representing a future in which totalitarian governments suppress it. (A linking sentence that ties it all back to the question and rephrases the point)

Orwell then argues that the effect of this suppression is a loss of human intricacy that brutalises society and devalues individual experiences. (Cause and effect argument that links collective suppression to a loss of human intricacy on an individual scale – continuous engagement with the question and the rubric!) Orwell’s exposure to the widespread hysteria of Hitler’s Nazi regime, caused by the Nuremberg Rallies and Joseph Goebbels’ virulent anti-semitic propaganda, informs his representation of Oceania’s dehumanised masses. (More specific context around the Nazis, and a specific link to how it informed his work) The burlesque Two Minute Hate reveals human inconsistency by representing how even introspective, intelligent characters can be stripped of their intricacy and compassion by the experience of collective hysteria: even Winston wishes to “flog [Julia] to death with a rubber truncheon…ravish her and cut her throat at the moment of climax”, and is only restored by compliance to the Christ-like totalitarian authority, “My-Saviour!”, Big Brother. (A link to the rubric with the ‘human inconsistency’ point) Orwell frequently juxtaposes dehumanising representations of the proles, “the proles are not human beings”, to political sloganism: “As the Party slogan put it: ‘Proles and animals are free’”, to argue that in such a collectively suppressed society, the upper class grow insensitive towards the intricate nature of those less privileged. (It’s important to link the proles into your argument – they’re often forgotten, but they’re a big part of the text!) He asserts that this loss of empathy degrades the authenticity and intricacy of human relationships, characterised by Winson’s paradoxically hyperbolic repulsion towards his wife: “[Katharine] had without exception the most stupid, vulgar, empty mind that he had every encountered”. (Continuous engagement with the question and rubric: make sure to recycle rubric terms – here, done with ‘paradoxically’ – and question terms – here, with ‘intricacy’)  Winston’s “betrayal” of Julia symbolises how totalitarianism ultimately brutalises individuals by replacing their compassion for intricate ideals such as love with selfish pragmatism: “Do it to Julia…Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me!” Therefore, Orwell makes us more aware of the intricate nature of humanity by demonstrating how it can be robbed by suppressive governments and collective hysteria. (A linking sentence that sums up the paragraph).

By making us aware of how totalitarian governments suppress meaningful human experiences both individually and collectively, Orwell challenges us to resist so we can preserve our intricate nature. (This third paragraph discusses Orwell’s purpose as a composer. This can in general be a helpful way to structure paragraphs: Collective, Individual, Purpose) Orwell’s service in the 1930s Spanish Civil War as part of the Republican militia fighting against fascist-supported rebels positions him to satirise the political apathy of his audience. (Integration of personal context is useful here to justify Orwell’s motivations. It’s also a lot fresher than just including another totalitarian regime Orwell was exposed to) Orwell alludes to this through the metaphor of Winston’s diarising as an anomalous individual experience of resistance, ““[Winston] was a lonely ghost uttering a truth that nobody would ever hear,” which highlights how his intricate nature persists even in a suppressive society. Often, Orwell meta-fictively addresses his own context, as “a time when thought is free…when truth exists”, to establish an imperative to preserve our intricate human nature while we still can. The Julia romance trope (It’s good to include terms such as ‘trope’ which reflect your understanding of narrative structure and the overall form of the work.) represents how Winston’s gradual rejection of his political apathy empowered him to experience an authentic, intricately human relationship that subverts his totalitarian society: “the gesture with which [Julia] had thrown her clothes aside…[belonged] to an ancient time. Winston woke up with the word ‘Shakespeare’ on his lips.” Orwell juxtaposes Julia’s sexuality to Shakespeare, an immediately-recognisable metonym for culture and history, to argue that human intricacy can only be restored by actively resisting the dehumanising influence of the government. Orwell also represents Winston’s desensitised and immediate devotion to the Brotherhood to reflect how the preservation of human intricacy is a cause worth rebelling for, even by paradoxically unjust means: “[Winston was] prepared to commit murder…acts of sabotage which may cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people…throw sulphuric acid in a child’s face.” (More chronological examples that show Winston’s transformation throughout the text. It’s useful to explore and contrast those who resist with those who don’t resist, and how just the act of resistance in some way restores our humanity! That’s why this paragraph comes after the ‘brutalised individual experience’ paragraph) However, Orwell ultimately asserts that it is too late for Winston to meaningfully restore humanity’s intricate nature, and concludes the text with his symbolic death and acceptance of the regime, “[Winston] had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.” (It’s important to remember that Orwell ends the text so miserably so that he can motivate his audiences not to do the same thing). The futility of this ending ignites the idea that we must not only be aware of our intricate nature, but must actively resist oppressive governments while we still can in order to preserve it. (A linking sentence that ties the paragraph together and justifies the futility of the ending)

Therefore, Orwell’s representation of human experiences in Nineteen Eighty-Four encourages us to reflect personally on our own intricate human nature, and challenges us to fight to preserve it. (Engages with the question (through the reflection point), and includes Orwell’s purpose as a composer). His depiction of a totalitarian government’s unchecked assertion of power on human culture and freedom, and the brutalising impact this has on individual and collective experiences, ultimately galvanises us to reject political apathy. (Your argument summaries can often be combined into a sentence or two in the conclusion now that the marker knows what you’re talking about. This reinforces the cause and effect structure as well.) Thus, the role of storytelling for Orwell is not only to make us more aware of our intricate nature, but to prove that we must actively resist oppressive governments while we still can in order to preserve it. (The clincher! It’s often useful to add “not only” in your final sentence to reinforce the massive scope of the text)

If reading this essay has helped you, you may also enjoy reading Marko’s ultimate guide to writing 20/20 HSC English essays .

P.S If you have any questions about aceing HSC English , you are welcome to learn from Marko and join one of Project Academy’s HSC English classes on a 3 week trial .

The Fundamental Physics Strategy

Not everything has to be as difficult as Quantum Physics. Here is my short guide to HSC Physics.

Edward Townsend-Medlock

Head of Physics (18' - 22')

Textual Conversations - The Context of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes

Katriel discusses the Plath and Hughes' context within the scope of module A!

English Team

Katriel Tan and Marko Beocanin

HSC English Advanced: Textual Conversations - The Tempest and Hag-Seed

Katriel's guide to The Tempest and Hag-Seed in Module A, HSC English Advanced!

4U Maths Past Paper Strategies

People only tell you "do more past papers", but they rarely tell you HOW to...

99.85 ATAR & North Sydney Boys Alumni

Maximise Your Chances Of Coming First At School

Trial any Project Academy course for 3 weeks.

NSW's Top 1% Tutors

Unlimited Tutorials

NSW's Most Effective Courses

Access to Project's iPad

Access to Exclusive Resources

Access to Project's Study Space

How to Write a Band 6 Discursive Writing Piece

Home » Blog » Advice for Students » How to Write a Band 6 Discursive Writing Piece

• February 17, 2022

In the most recent version of the syllabus, NESA has added a new form of writing for Module C, and that is discursive writing! Although this new style of writing can appear daunting at first glance, it is a fun addition to the module once you get the hang of it. Today, we will provide you with some helpful tips to achieve a band 6 for your discursive.

So, before we start, what is discursive writing?

Discursive writing is a discussion piece of multiple ideas or points of view, without the intention of trying to persuade the reader. This means that you have to counter-argue yourself and provide an argument both FOR and AGAINST something.

For example, if I was to write a discursive about climate change protests, I would start by talking about why it is important to protest e.g. “In order for governments to take our voices seriously, we need to protest against climate change!”. Then, in my next argument, I would contradict myself by saying that protesting may not be so useful after all e.g. “But then I thought to myself, is protesting such a good idea after all? I mean, the politicians aren’t really listening anyway”.

NOTE: Colloquial language is accepted for discursive writing and other forms of writing in Module C (except reflections) but should NEVER be used in any other modules as essay writing must be formal.

A basic structure employed when planning a discursive essay can include:

• An engaging introduction
• Clear indication of your position in relation to the topic
• Your first argument, with supporting evidence
• Your second argument, with supporting evidence
• A conclusion

Key aspects of discursive writing:

Register of Language: can be a mix of formal and informal language (can include colloquialism) Style and Tone: Educated audience, but open and friendly tone/ subjective Use of Pronouns: First pronouns are acceptable Use of Figurative Devices: should be used throughout Providing Evidence and Examples: Do, but not necessarily in a P.E.E.L or T.E.E.L structure Structure: intro, paragraphing, conclusion. Paragraph lengths can vary and there is no set structure

Tip #1: Always start with a title

Starting with a title is important as it is a key requirement for a complete discursive piece. You can make your title as fun and engaging as you like, as long as it is appropriate and relevant to the topic.

Tip #2: Starting with a personal anecdote (not compulsory)

Although this is not a requirement, starting with a personal anecdote can help you introduce the topic in a creative way before presenting your arguments. This is a good way to meet rubric requirements such as “students use language creatively and imaginatively for a range of purposes”. For example, say I was still writing that discursive about climate change protests, I could start it by saying “I have always had mixed feelings about protests since attending my first one in December last year. On one hand, it felt good to scream “Climate justice matters!” in hopes that someone would listen. On the other hand, I could not help but wonder, are they really effective for creating change?”

Tip #3: Gathering evidence to support your arguments

Even though you are not writing a discursive piece to persuade the reader, you still have to argue two sides (you just have to make sure that you do not state that one side is better than the other). As a result, you need to find evidence to support both your arguments. This could include quotes, statistics etc.

Tip #4: Make sure you base it on the stimulus

Always refer to the stimulus to ensure you are answering the question. This does not mean you have to refer to it in an extremely obvious word-for-word manner e.g. a stimulus with a picture of a boat does not mean you have to write a discursive about a boat. However, you must always incorporate the stimulus in a way that can easily be justified in your reflection statement and is obvious to the marker e.g. if you get a discursive about a boat, you could write about sailing, fishing or how life is rocky like a boat in the ocean.

Tip #5: Use many language techniques and stylistic devices throughout

This is an essential rubric requirement mentioned throughout the syllabus. For example, the rubric states that students must use “various figurative, rhetorical and linguistic devices”. Be sure to use a few different language techniques and devices e.g. metaphor, rhetorical questions, simile, first person etc. throughout your writing (in the introduction, arguments and conclusion).

Need Some Help Writing a Band 6 Discursive Writing Piece? Our English teachers would love to critique and build on your writing skills. Enrol with us and we can show you all the tips and tricks to mastering a band 6 discursive text!

Hey! If you would like to Join Our Team, please complete this form and write a brief message detailing why you would like to work with MWNS. We are excited to hear your response! Thanks, Principal Sia.

• Full Name * First Last
• Upload CV * Drop files here or Select files Max. file size: 6 MB. empty to support CSS :empty selector. -->
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

[email protected]

• Dec 10, 2019

3 Do's & Don'ts of Discursive Writing All HSC Students Must Know for Module C

Discursive writing is the new kid in town. It's also a bit of a saviour for all who are not confident with creative writing. It's also become all the rage with school assessment tasks. Although it is an "informal" piece of writing, don't be deceived. Keep reading to make sure you know what to watch out for in your discursive writing.

Let's start with a NESA definition (bear with us, your English tutors don't know how else to start their blog posts)

Texts whose primary focus is to explore an idea or variety of topics. These texts involve the discussion of an idea(s) or opinion(s) without the direct intention of persuading the reader, listener or viewer to adopt any single point of view.

THE DON'Ts

DON'T neglect structure

A discursive ultimately will follow the structure required for any "argument". It requires a thesis, context and topic sentences. Although the wording can be casual there is room to jump around your ideas a bit, in the end stick to the essay structure we all know and love.

DON'T neglect good grammar

Being "informal" does not mean "forget how English works". The requirements for good grammar, spelling and punctuation still apply here. Informal simply means you can ask rhetorical questions , perhaps engage in first person language , use metaphors, similes and other figurative language in your work.

None of those have anything to do with neglecting good grammar practices. So stick to your subject - verb complexes!

DON'T be afraid to argue against yourself 🗣

A discursive has requirements similar to a "discuss" or "evaluate" question in science. It's about considering all the perspectives in the equation. Do not be afraid to make a statement to challenge it. Do not be afraid to say something then question it with a hypophora (Is the hypophora an effective technique for discursives? You bet it is.)

Let loose, argue against yourself and see where your thoughts takes you. After all to be discursive means to be tangential in the thought. And if maths has taught us anything it would be the definition of a tangent.

DO get personal 💛

Applying your own point of view and experiences is a great way to spice up a discursive. Drawing examples from your own experiences and our modern world is a crucial part of every Module in the syllabus. Talk about how your texts translates to our everyday lives: where can we still see government control? Racial discrimination? Bullying of people who are "different"?

DO use humour 🤣and other techniques

Not a knock knock joke (although they are excellent with the right execution).

Feel comfortable in using some sarcasm, some irony and inject a bit more spice into your arguments. Use metaphors and similes in your writing! Use imagery and personification. The more you use the more you have in your reflection!

DO have a position by the end of the essay

So NESA says that discursive writing should not have the " direct intention of persuading the reader" (note the awesome quote integration in that sentence  😉).

But it doesn't mean you don't have an opinion. You're just letting that position organic come through with your language. You're effectively finessing your readers to feel a certain way. Definitely write with your own opinion. Just don't act as if it's the only opinion in the world (which is why you present some devil's advocate counter arguments against yourself).

🔎🔎🔎 Below is one of Orwell's essays in a style similar to what NESA describes as discursive. We have made some comments here in red about things worth noting. 🔎🔎🔎

George Orwell - You and the Atomic Bomb

Considering how likely we all are to be blown to pieces by it within the next five years, the atomic bomb has not roused so much discussion as might have been expected. The newspapers have published numerous diagrams, not very helpful to the average man, of protons and neutrons doing their stuff, and there has been much reiteration of the useless statement that the bomb ‘ought to be put under international control.’ [Note how he engages the audience with context and relatable facts] . But curiously little has been said, at any rate in print, about the question that is of most urgent interest to all of us, namely: ‘How difficult are these things to manufacture?’ [His final rhetorical question here is effectively his thesis. He is letting the reader know what the rest of the essay will be about]

Such information as we — that is, the big public — possess on this subject has come to us in a rather indirect way, apropos of President Truman's decision not to hand over certain secrets to the USSR. [This is an informal topic sentence. He is using the rest of the paragraph to support the idea that "there is a lot of misinformation on the topic"] Some months ago, when the bomb was still only a rumour, there was a widespread belief that splitting the atom was merely a problem for the physicists, and that when they had solved it a new and devastating weapon would be within reach of almost everybody. (At any moment, so the rumour went, some lonely lunatic in a laboratory might blow civilisation to smithereens, as easily as touching off a firework.) [Note the use of a simile and a light hearted example to convey the idea. But also, note the impeccable grammar]

Had that been true, the whole trend of history would have been abruptly altered. The distinction between great states and small states would have been wiped out, and the power of the State over the individual would have been greatly weakened. [His new topic sentence shows his position, how exciting] However, it appears from President Truman's remarks, and various comments that have been made on them, that the bomb is fantastically expensive and that its manufacture demands an enormous industrial effort, such as only three or four countries in the world are capable of making. This point is of cardinal importance, because it may mean that the discovery of the atomic bomb, so far from reversing history, will simply intensify the trends which have been apparent for a dozen years past [and here he just argues against his own fact, setting up for the next tangent he is about to go on] .

It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. [Note how his previous disagreement/questioning of his own ideas lead to this new point of digression. This is a great way to organise your paragraphs in your own discursive] . Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak. [an excellent metaphor for what he wants to convey]

The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. [Here we are expanding on the "claws" that was previously mentioned as the new idea. Really take note that this is how the organisation is mostly driven. It sounds casual but collected] . Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans — even Tibetans — could put up a fight for their independence [claws for the weak again] , sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of power. Already, in 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now there are only three — ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon — or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting — not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant. [Once again, he sets up the idea that there is a trend in war and power for the entire paragraph. Then his final sentence provides an alternative view. Notice the pattern? Guess what he'll be talking about next?]

From various symptoms one can infer that the Russians do not yet possess the secret of making the atomic bomb; on the other hand, the consensus of opinion seems to be that they will possess it within a few years. So we have before us the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them. It has been rather hastily assumed that this means bigger and bloodier wars [this actually tracks back to paragraph 3. He basically provided alternative perspectives for 2 paragraphs in order to return to his original position, this time with more gusto because he has supported it by now] , and perhaps an actual end to the machine civilisation. But suppose — and really this the likeliest development — that the surviving great nations make a tacit agreement never to use the atomic bomb against one another? Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate? In that case we are back where we were before, the only difference being that power is concentrated in still fewer hands and that the outlook for subject peoples and oppressed classes is still more hopeless.

When James Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution it seemed probable to many Americans that the Germans would win the European end of the war, and it was therefore natural to assume that Germany and not Russia would dominate the Eurasian land mass, while Japan would remain master of East Asia. This was a miscalculation, but it does not affect the main argument. For Burnham's geographical picture of the new world has turned out to be correct. More and more obviously the surface of the earth is being parceled off into three great empires, each self-contained and cut off from contact with the outer world, and each ruled, under one disguise or another, by a self-elected oligarchy. The haggling as to where the frontiers are to be drawn is still going on, and will continue for some years, and the third of the three super-states — East Asia, dominated by China — is still potential rather than actual. But the general drift is unmistakable, and every scientific discovery of recent years has accelerated it.

We were once told that the aeroplane had ‘ abolished frontiers ’; actually it is only since the aeroplane became a serious weapon that frontiers have become definitely impassable. The radio was once expected to promote international understanding and co-operation; it has turned out to be a means of insulating one nation from another. The atomic bomb may complete the process by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of military equality. Unable to conquer one another, they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes.

For forty or fifty years past, Mr. H. G. Wells and others have been warning us that man is in danger of destroying himself with his own weapons, leaving the ants or some other gregarious species to take over. Anyone who has seen the ruined cities of Germany will find this notion at least thinkable. Nevertheless, looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity. James Burnham's theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications — that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbors.

Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police state. If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a ‘ peace that is no peace ’. [Here his final position is restated. That the atomic bomb's power on the world is dependant on its production cost. He digressed throughout the essay but never jumped too far from these ideas. Remember: DON'T NEGLECT STRUCTURE]

💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼Take a note out of Orwell's book and smash your next discursive! 💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼

Recent Posts

Score 20/20 for unseen texts with last minute revision! 5 high yield tips 💪🏼

3 Steps for a Strong Start to Your English Essay

Have a weak vocabulary? 5 ways to write better without learning a lot of difficult words.

Please login to system to use all resources

Search the forums now!

We have moved.

We want to extend a heartfelt thanks to everyone who has made the original ATAR Notes forum such a helpful, warm and welcoming place. Your contributions are appreciated and we will be leaving the forum in archive mode for posterity.

Please visit our new website and discussion area .

Welcome, Guest . Please login or register.

• ATAR Notes: Forum »
• HSC Stuff »
• HSC Subjects + Help »
• HSC Marking and Feedback »
• English advanced - discursive essay

Author Topic: English advanced - discursive essay  (Read 2454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kelly.ly___

• Fresh Poster
• MOTM: Jan 20

• Respect: +18

Re: English advanced - discursive essay

Recent posts.

How to Write a Persuasive Writing Piece for Module C: The Craft of Writing

One of the features of Module C: Craft of Writing is the possibility that you will have to demonstrate your understanding of your texts as a HSC persuasive writing piece.

By engaging with your prescribed texts, you will learn rhetoric — that is, the art of the argument.

This might take the form of imitating rhetorical styles found in your texts, or by taking a particular stance in the narrative world of them, if you’re doing fiction.

If you’re feeling unsure about how you may want to do this, keep reading through this guide!

Step 1: Identify the overall argument of a piece Step 2: Identify the types of arguments being made Step 3: Identify persuasive techniques Step 4: Write out your structure Step 5: Show your engagement through your arguments Step 6: Analyse your own work

How to Write a Persuasive Piece for the HSC

This module requires you to write a HSC persuasive piece based on an understanding of your text. However, this also means that you have to know how the parts of an argument work!

One way of learning this is by deconstructing an argument, which means taking it apart and seeing how it works.

If you’re prescribed a non-fiction text for study, start analysing how it works.

Step 1: Identify the overall argument of a piece

When examining a piece of persuasive writing, you need to be able to locate what its central argument is. This is almost always located in the opening of a persuasive writing piece. 

While there may be a variety of arguments made within it, they will all be being used to prove a central point — like the thesis of one of your own essays. 

Once you’ve done this, you can start analysing how the smaller points are made to advance the main argument.

Remember, the smaller points will be encapsulated by the main point.

For instance, in George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language,’ which is a prescribed non-fiction text, he opens by making the main argument that the English language is being regularly misused, but it can be solved.

He then discusses the multiple ways it is being misused, and how these problems can be fixed, which are the smaller points. 

Step 2: Identify the types of arguments being made

A classical way of considering arguments is by judging whether they target the logical reasoning of the audience, the emotional reasoning of the audience, or the moral reasoning of the audience.

These are called emotional, rational, and moral arguments.

A rational argument is one that is decided on the basis of logic, an emotional argument  targets how people feel, while a moral argument appeals to people’s sense of right and wrong.

For instance, an idea in support of the development of a new park in a city, to use an example, could be made during one of these:

• Emotional: Our city is lonely and desolate, and the park could improve this
• Rational: From these statistics, we can see that a park has long-term benefits which far exceed the short-term costs
• Moral: We must do the just thing and help the city be more accessible to families

While these arguments are basic, they show the three basic kinds of arguments.

Step 3: Identify persuasive techniques

Now, read the piece you are using as an example of persuasive writing.

Break it down, and start identifying persuasive techniques and adding them into TEE tables. If you’re not sure how to do this, check out our guide on TEE tables !

Here’s an example of how to use a TEE table, using George Orwell’s  1984 :

To fill out your TEE table, you will need to have some knowledge of persuasive techniques.

Some of the most common persuasive techniques you could identify include: 

• Pre-emptive Strike: Identifying potential counter arguments and debunking them within the writing
• High Modality Language: Strong definitive words like ‘must,’ ‘certainly,’ and ‘definitely,’ rather than ‘might,’ ‘perhaps,’ and ’could’
• Inclusive Language: Language which uses inclusive pronouns, such as ‘we’ and ‘our’
• Emotive Language: Language which seeks to elicit an emotion

In the next half, we’re going to focus on how to apply this analysis you’ve just completed.

How to Apply Your Analysis

Step 4: write out your structure.

Before you begin applying your deconstruction of an argument, outline your arguments.

While you may have done this in previous years, you will need to also outline how they are connected, and what kind of arguments you will use.

A persuasive piece should have three main points for three main body paragraphs, which, if possible, build upon one another.

For instance, the second body paragraph may extend upon ideas from the conclusion of the first paragraph. This allows your piece to have flow and generate cohesive ideas which don’t reiterate the same points but rather build on them. 

Step 5: Show your engagement through your arguments

Once you have planned, you are ready to start writing!

But remember, part of this unit includes showing your engagement with the texts.

As you go through your arguments, you need to keep in mind that you will need to be able to explain your arguments and the way they are structured, with a view to how it’s reflected in your texts.

This could mean using similar techniques your authors do, such as using similar humour, or making a pre-emptive strike for the same argumentative purpose as your author.  

This ultimately demonstrates that you have identified and understand the creative decisions of your author by implementing these techniques in your own piece of writing.

Step 6: Analyse your own work

One way to break down your writing and be able to look at it closely is to create TEE tables discussing how your writing functions.

While this may seem tedious, you do need to be able to reflect on your own writing, so this is a great space to go.

Persuasive writing for the HSC isn’t easy, but hopefully this guide has given you some ideas.

Remember, don’t be afraid to experiment and make mistakes in your first attempts at writing in what may be an unfamiliar form.

The trick is to practise early on, and get efficient at building arguments!

Looking for practice questions for The Craft of Writing ? Check out some by clicking on this link!

Looking for some extra help with HSC English persuasive writing?

We pride ourselves on our inspirational hsc coaches and mentors.

We offer tutoring and mentoring for Years K-12 in a variety of subjects, with personalised lessons conducted one-on-one in your home or at one of our state of the art campuses in Hornsby or the Hills!

To find out more and get started with an inspirational tutor and mentor get in touch today!

Give us a ring on 1300 267 888, email us at [email protected] or check us out on Tiktok !

Cameron Croese completed his HSC in 2013, earning first place in his cohort in Advanced English, Extension English 1, and Extension English 2. Privately tutoring throughout his university career as an English and Education student, he enjoys helping his students at Art of Smart understand, write well on, and enjoy their texts, as well as assisting with other aspects of school life. He is currently working on his Advanced Graduate Diploma in English and Theatre Studies.

• Topics: ✏️ English , ✍️ Learn

Related Articles

The essential list of high modality words for persuasive writing, the step-by-step guide to hsc english module c: the craft of writing, hsc english module c: the craft of writing practice questions, 45,861 students have a head start....

Get exclusive study content & advice from our team of experts delivered weekly to your inbox!

Looking for English Support?

Discover how we can help you!

We provide services in